Am 16.06.2012 19:51, schrieb Michał Górny:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 09:54:12 +0200
> Florian Philipp <lists@...> wrote:
>> Am 15.06.2012 06:50, schrieb Duncan:
>>> Greg KH posted on Thu, 14 Jun 2012 21:28:10 -0700 as excerpted:
>>>> So, anyone been thinking about this? I have, and it's not pretty.
>>>> Should I worry about this and how it affects Gentoo, or not worry
>>>> about Gentoo right now and just focus on the other issues?
>>>> Minor details like, "do we have a 'company' that can pay Microsoft
>>>> to sign our bootloader?" is one aspect from the non-technical side
>>>> that I've been wondering about.
>>> I've been following developments and wondering a bit about this
>>> I had concluded that at least for x86/amd64, where MS is mandating
>>> a user controlled disable-signed-checking option, gentoo shouldn't
>>> have a problem. Other than updating the handbook to accommodate
>>> UEFI, presumably along with the grub2 stabilization, I believe
>>> we're fine as if a user can't figure out how to disable that option
>>> on their (x86/amd64) platform, they're hardly likely to be a good
>>> match for gentoo in any case.
>> As a user, I'd still like to have the chance of using Secure Boot with
>> Gentoo since it _really_ increases security. Even if it means I can no
>> longer build my own kernel.
> It doesn't. It's just a very long wooden fence; you just didn't find
> the hole yet.
Oh come on! That's FUD and you know it. If not, did you even look at the
specs and working principle?